However, this story is just a facade. The whole issue around the word `hacker' is completely transparent to anybody who has adequate knowledge of the linguistics of marginalized social groups-- criminals, the insane, prostitutes, communities founded by runaway slaves, fringe religious cults, and the likes.

The language of a marginalized group is intentionally shaped by its members to have a particularly rich inventory of slang words and phrases (and sometimes other grammatical devices) not found in the speech of the social mainstream. In the simplest cases, for which the archetype is prison slangs, it's just a collection of words added on top of the mainstream language. In the most complex cases, the mainstream language is "relexified", i.e. nearly its whole vocabular is replaced; this is the case in, for instance, communities of descendants of escaped slaves in Brazil, where the men speak a secret language identical to Portuguese in grammar, but with all the words replaced by African words.

Marginal languages serve at least these three functions:

They identify and rank members of the group. They serve as a badge; not only using criminal slang identifies you as a member of the criminal subculture, but also your relative skill at it is an indicator of your seniority therein.

They serve in the construction of identity as a criminal, thus promote group cohesion. They are part of a shared lore which is valued by its users and contributes to their self-image and adherence to the group.

They make their speech incomprehensible to outsiders, thus allowing them to conceal their messages.

However, here is a key piece of the puzzle which Mr. Raymond leaves out, and his constituency for obvious reasons of self-interest doesn't bother to call him on. A search on the Lexis-Nexis journalistic database dates the first usage of the term `computer hacker' to April 13, 1983, in the `Information Bank Abstracts' section of the Wall Street Journal. The abstract, by Erik Larson, reads as follows:

Article on computer `hackers', originally one who knew computers inside out, now used to describe fiddlers who electronically invade other people's computers, usually just for challenge.

One thing is plainly evident from this quote. By the time the media started using the word `hacker', it already meant "computer criminal". Contrary to what Mr. Raymonds and his countless sheep-like followers want us to believe, the media did not misapply the word `hacker'. In the usage of hackers, the word already meant "computer criminal" when the media picked it up.

Why all the outrage from the hacker community? This is simple. Recall the functions of criminal language, as stated above. When `hacker' was not a mainstream word, it had a particular power: it signaled `computer criminal' only to those in the know about computer crime. However, as soon as the media desciphers the criminal code, the word loses that power. Now, when the criminal describes himself as a `hacker', anybody can tell that he has just confessed a crime (or at least the intent to commit one).

Thus the predictable reaction from the `hacker' community: public denial of the true meaning of the word, along with the coinage of `cracker'. The computer criminals are not the `hackers', but rather those other people, the `crackers'. The upstanding, nonhacker citizen takes their word for it, and starts looking for `crackers'. None to be found; who calls themselves a `cracker', anyway? The criminals still refer to their activity as `hacking', which they have convinced the outside world is a respectable activity.

We should not fall prey to this duplicity. Resist attempts by hackers to bleach the criminal content of their activity away from their self-selected name.

Am I being naïve here, or is all this "hacker" hype merely scaremongering by the vested interests in the computer security industry? They are being made redundant by rapid advances in firewalls and content ratings technology. Their legal attempts to suppress this technology have failed. Now their only hope is to make the public buy their software out of fear.

That one of the <A HREF=http://www.cnet.com/software/0-806340-1204-6534881.html>links you posted</A> has a user opinion vote which gives the statistic of 48% of users giving it the thumbs down.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

10 BEAT $HORSE; 20 IF $HORSE="dead" THEN (none / 0) (#3)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 03:14:34 AM PST

EM, you're a smart guy and all, but you might want to try writing something that someone might actually give a shit about. 'Hacker' vs. 'cracker' is only an issue that teenaged Lunix hax0r wannbes and marijuana-addicted communists care about and they're not going to change popular language no matter how dogmatic they get. The rest of us simply don't care about this non-issue.

There are plenty of internet sites that specialize in discussions of a non-technocriminal focussed nature. You're quite welcome to find the topics you seek there. Adequacy as a website has traditionally addressed itself to three primary goals:

Unflinching, persistent and above all, unbiased critical commentary on the nerd sub-cultures that threaten our children

You will find that no matter where you go on the internet, you will be preceded by the subtle influence of the nerd mindset. Only at adequacy.org is the nerd problem laid bare. We do this to provide a sort of conceptual "black hole" which attracts nerd discussion, leaving other articles uncontaminated and free for analysis of more agreeable topics, such as religion and diction.

Since the internet was built by people with the knowledge to build it (nerds as you call 'em), I guess there is subtle influence. Anyhow, the story brings to light a problem: bad people hiding behind good names. Think about it for a bit. I don't think I should say more on this subject.

Unbiased? (none / 0) (#14)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 12:09:45 PM PST

You, of all people on this site, have no right to go on about being unbiased. After reading some of your articles and posts, all I see is a biased fool that has little to no clue as to what he's talking about.

As I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, there is universal agreement that both hackers and crackers break in to computers that do not belong to them. The difference is that the hackers just poke around and maybe fix something while the crackers try to destroy the computer or enslave it in some fashion.

I see this as no different from my home. Last week my kitchen sink leaked slightly. Had I arrived home one day and found an uninvited plumber repairing my sink I would have killed him immediately. Despite the good faith of these hackers I pray that I do not find one infiltrating my home computer.

Despite the good faith of these hackers I pray that I do not find one infiltrating my home computer.

a) Run a firewall. Preferably OpenBSD one.
b) Run as few services open to the Net in as barebones configuration as possible. Complexity invites danger.
c) Keep the exposed parts patched and up-to-date.
d) Employ a sort of perimeter monitoring. Snort is my personal favourite.
e) Read the logs regularly.
f) Keep low profile. Look unimportant.

a-c protects you against script kids.
d-e tells you someone is messing around.
f is here to avoid bringing attention of high-class adversaries. They are the most dangerous, but there is very few of them.

This 6-point program should boost your security in orders of magnitude.

Apple computers have traditionally been without any security problems and OS X is based Linux which makes it even MORE secure.

Of course, you could do all that other stuff if you don't have any social life. But I expect most people have girl friends to date and concerts to attend and don't want to spend all their time hunched over some computer.

In my experience, it is the people who spend their days in front of a PC who have the worst acne.

The question is what causes this corrolation? Do PCs cause pimples, or do pimples cause people to use PCs?

People who don't use computers or who use Apple computers are generally more physically attrative than PC users. These non-geeks seem to instinctively understand that a good complection is important if you want to go on dates.

Many a time have I been to a LAN party and ALL the windows were shut! Its hot, humid and very uncomfortable. But your average computer obsessive doesnt get much exercise and therefore doesnt have the circulation to keep them warm naturally.

Still I cant live like that, I mutter a few incenities (loud enuf for them to hear) and open as many windows as I find.

At home I always have a few windows open.<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

I suppose it makes sense, if they don't need
fans, why do they need ventilation? But what is
it about PCs that so contaminates the air that
you have to keep the windows open? Is it
because of the RISC processors? Or not having
a floppy drive?

Whatever it is, you have to be willing to at least
suspect that switching to a Macintosh Apple will
make you healthier and more attractive.

Either that or it is that ugly people just like
PCs more, and really ugly people like PCs running
Lunix more. But why? One eyed man thing?

I suppose it makes sense, if they don't need fans, why do they need ventilation?

I think the lovely Macs do need fans (except for the beautiful Cube), but they do not need the industrial fans used in Formula One cars like the PCs do.

It's because ugly PC CPU designers are dirty creationist godthinkers, who believe that Newtons laws of thermodynamics do not apply to them or their hideous machine monstrosities. If they knuckled down under the rule of Science, they would stop trying to make nuclear reactors out of silicon, and would adopt Motorola's cool, clean CPU designs.adequacy.org -- because it isn't

The fact is, that even during the dark days, Apple hardware has always been extremely reliable. I have an 8 year old Mac that has had absolutely no hardware problems whatsoever (save for a flat clock battery).

Maybe if you weren't using L.I.N.U.X. you wouldn't have so many problems?

I have an ancient ST4097 disk that was put out of 5+ years of nonstop service only about an year and half ago (and only because of being noisy and that I had better use for the ISA slot occupied by its MFM controller) - compare it with today's disks.

I have an old 386 that for years served as a basic scheduling machine (running a simple DOS program I wrote for it), de facto an alarm clock with an 80x25 ASCII display when a monitor is switched to it, where jobs were controlled through putting files with commands to a shared network drive (as I hadn't knew about remote calls back then and the network was an ancient version of NoWell Netware Lite from FSES (Friendship Software Exchange Service)). I decommissioned it some time ago and kept it in service as it was serving as 12V power supply for some applications - I was quite surprised that the system was still working, despite that the board and most of the cards was discarded junk even years ago when I put it together. Today's boards aren't as reliable...

Hey - even my old C64 is still functional!!!

The hardware reliability rates go down steadily last years. A friend is a manager of a large hardware shop. I route the purchases of our company through him as he doesn't tend to squeeze me for every buck of profit, and gives me access to data that I as just-a-customer shouldn't have (ie, their real purchase prices, the return rates of various hardware vs how much they sell - which is a good reliability indicator, and couple more goodies). The reliability data don't talk well about the modern technology. But on the other hand, each device that fails a month after warranty expires is another sale, another profit, another boost for the GNP and the Holy Economical Growth - so manufacture of shitty hardware is probably a sort of manufacturers' patriotic duty. *spit* *spit* *spit*

Maybe if you weren't using L.I.N.U.X. you wouldn't have so many problems?

I got confirmed that some of the most nondeterministic occassional crashes and freezes of Linux are caused by shitty hardware - after exchanging of the motherboard for another - identical - one the problems typically vanish (these problems are hard to test and are unobservable on Windows because of their "native" crash rate). The technology is pushed to its edge, in the mad chase for another megahertz for the cost of heat, and for another cent saved on expenses, for the cost of reliability. Rushed to market to be there first - for the cost of
unfinished testing; FDIV bug, anyone? *spit*

Where is the engineering pride? Sold for $0.02 saved on each board???

Bad Hardware . . . (none / 0) (#94)

by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 12:16:16 PM PST

A surprisingly large number of PC's have disks with bad sectors, or memory with bad spots.

Typically, the first thing I do with any new piece of hardware is give it a very good, long burn followed by extensive testing.

Apple computers have traditionally been without any security problems and OS X is based Linux which makes it even MORE secure.

OS X is based on BSD - which is better. But as both Linux and BSD are members of the unixoid family and most of the code can be ported from one to another easily, the difference isn't really big.

Macs hadn't security problems because they never had high-enough market share. BSD has its holes as well, just smaller and more scarce and not as gaping as the Microsoft® SecurityHole®™ Technology.

One special gripe I have with Apple is that their designers apparently forgot what the right angle is. 90 degrees, or pi/2, is apparently not hip enough. Bah. And their color selection - where is the elegant silver-black combination? What about the dark, deep, sapphire blue?

Of course, you could do all that other stuff if you don't have any social life. But I expect most people have girl friends to date and concerts to attend and don't want to spend all their time hunched over some computer.

Nothing is free. So you have to 1) either do it yourself, or 2) contract someone to do it for you, or 3) take the risk. It's on you and your constraints and priorities what you will pick. Hint: the option 3 is the most tempting and the worst one and it is only a matter of time until you will be sorry about choosing it.

Either you will adhere to the basic guidelines, or you have no right to complain about anyone other than yourself. The world is harsh place and everything is a tradeoff.

and you call yourself a hacker (none / 0) (#12)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 10:16:42 AM PST

OS X is based on BSD

OS X is based on Mach. As an developer expedient and sop to openly saucy lunatix, Apple has integrated userland s/w and its man pages from FreeBSD, but you can install that stuff on Windows, and if you did, I doubt it would magically become Unix, would it? Try this: type vipw on both NT and OS X. Spot the difference? Me neither.

This has to be said: the nattering lunatix fringe on adequacy buzzes around like a swarm of annoying mosquitoes without ever actually demonstrating a useful knowledge of computers in their comments. I get the sense you lunatix are masters of the same sort of trivial details which made TSR programmers masters of the universe a few years ago. Knowning command line switches to gnu tools is like knowing how to run protected mode games in MS-DOS. Sorry, I didnt mean to reveal your future.

According to Apple, quoting,
A Mach 3.0 kernel with support for symmetric multiprocessing.
Based on 4.4BSD with networking from FreeBSD 3.2.

So we're technically right both.

Apple has integrated userland s/w and its man pages from FreeBSD, but you can install that stuff on Windows

Yes? How? Directly, or through some sort of emulation?

and if you did, I doubt it would magically become Unix, would it?

I don't understand what you mean?

If it's a unix port of Windows program, or Windows port of an unix program, or a DOS program running in Linux in DOS emulator, does it matter? What matters is that it runs on the system we need it to run on.

So Bill borrowed what was good on unixes. NT networking is BSD-based too.

This has to be said: the nattering lunatix fringe on adequacy buzzes around like a swarm of annoying mosquitoes without ever actually demonstrating a useful knowledge of computers in their comments.

Hmmm... Anyone here with spare time to refute this claim with some links?

I get the sense you lunatix are masters of the same sort of trivial details which made TSR programmers masters of the universe a few years ago.

And which makes us the masters of the universe today. Wondering what sort of trivial details will be required to master the universe in few more years...

Knowning command line switches to gnu tools is like knowing how to run protected mode games in MS-DOS.

Ever tried to write a script with graphical-interface tools to call? Commandline options are essential. GUI is just an eye-candy.

Good old times of good games. Actually, good old times of 8-bit computers and games that were based on a good idea, instead of on fast 3D graphics...

Sorry, I didnt mean to reveal your future.

Actually, you could be right. I hadn't played TFX for ages and I quite miss it; wondering what it will do on a modern computer... Together with GameWizard that offers nearly unlimited cannon ammo, and a custom mission with as much of MiGs as possible (I think 25) on the smallest possible area, it offers the right mix of an arcade and a simulator. Screw the missiles, they're for cowards. Screw the waypoints - give me a cannon, a pair of jet engines, and whatever moves becomes a primary target.

Scramble!

myths (none / 0) (#17)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 02:15:23 PM PST

NT networking is BSD-based too.

No, it is not based on the BSD. The original Windows TCP stack was bought from an australian company who's name eludes me but which sounds vaguely like Wollowang. This was during the days of Trumpet Winsock, when the internet caught MS off guard.
Anyway, that stack did have had a BSD pedigree but it doesnt matter because MS soon got their priorities in gear and wrote an original MS stack, the same stack you find today in NT. The current Windows TCP stack has less BSD heritage than the Lunix stack. Much less. None at all, in fact.

The only vestige of BSD code in MS TCP is in the command line ftp client no one uses.

In future, know this: MS has a standing policy forbidding their employees from even reading Open Sauce code lest it infect MS code. It is no accident MS code runs so much better than Lunix.

See, here's a guy like me who just doesnt give a shit about this stuff, yet I manage to know more about it than the lunix dunderheads who have committed their abject lives to living it large.

if so, add up the bugs and insecurities in Microsoft's stack and compare that number to bugs and insecurities in Lunix networking. There's a reason why Lunix the OS sucks compared to Windows, the OS, you know, and that reason has nothing to do with promiscuous scripting in the MSIE application.

Let's see here (1.00 / 1) (#25)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 05:17:11 PM PST

>>>>>>>>There's a reason why Lunix the OS sucks compared to Windows, the OS, you know, and that reason has nothing to do with promiscuous scripting in the MSIE application.</b>

Let's see I can go after this a couple of ways. Personally I have never used LUnix. I have no need from Little Unix for the Commodore 64/128 machines. Therefore I wouldn't know if it comes with a calculator.

Now maybe you mean Linux. Linux is a kernel. No it does not come with a calculator. Hell, niether does the Windows, and DOS kernels. However, the Windows OS and most Linux distros designed for workstations, servers, desktop and such do. I hope that's simple enought for you.

Also Linux is not an OS. It's a kernel. It combined with various utilities, apps, etc make it an OS. However, it's not necessary to use linux to make an OS. So there goes that argument.

Now, do you really want me to start listing bugs that are not part of Internet Explorer? Since Linux based OSes can be design for workstations and server we would need to compare it with a similar Windows product. Since there is no server version of XP (not without a registry hack) we'll compare Windows 2000. I'll skip the obvious Outlook Express (it's not IE), MSN Meesenger, Media Player, and UPnP. Here we go:

Damn! Hell, and that's far from even half of the Base Operating System BUGS. Let's see there's also Directory Services bugs, and Internet Information Services and COM+ bugs.

no, i'm sorry, you missed the point of the exercis (none / 0) (#27)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 05:55:43 PM PST

you have to compare the number of bugs in the windows kernel with the roach motel known as the Lunix kernel. Understand? I'm not interested in evidence that software has bugs, I want you Lunix morons to learn once and for all serious bugs in Lunix are the rule, not the exception. It's a piddling, underperforming, underwhelming, technologically obsolete, amateurly written bug fest.

visit a security site or audit security lists. The windows kernel is remarkably bug free compared to any version of unix, and Lunix is the most bug ridden of all unicies. The problem with you Lunix morons is that you know nothing about NT internals. Honestly, Lunatix are the most unsophisticated computer geeks I've ever come across on the internet. You're all just shrill morons.

I've been reading adequacy for a while now and it astounds me that the number of people (i'm assuming your all people) who post articles, specifically the flamers, that have such little to no knowledge of their chosen subject.

Now, in regards to you misinformed and completely arrogant post AR, try doing some _REAL_ research.
Make sure you know the difference between LUnix and Linux, and for God's sake and everyone elses, don't get your info from T. Reginald Gibbons.

Just how do you know what happens in an NT config?
Do you work for Microsoft coding W2K?

Perhaps you sould listen to the FREE advice being given by people who KNOW what they are talking about. Most of the poeple on adequacy, who you term hackers, are trying to enlighten you on how the world actually works. If they were the malicious type that you so despise, you wouldn't see them here!

End Flames
Fanged

<=X=>

hackers are enlightening? (none / 0) (#37)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 10:42:42 PM PST

That's a novel criminal defense.

Most of the poeple on adequacy, who you term hackers, are trying to enlighten you on how the world actually works.

Actually, I already knew Lunix had 0.24% marketshare in the real world. Has it gone down already? I guess market decline is the fastest thing about Lunix.

so as i said before sit-down and shut up unless you have something useful to say

I think a statement of Window's superiority over Lunix is useful if not a little too obvious. You know Lunix sucks, you know Lunix apps are worthless knockoffs of real american ingenuity. I know you know all this deep down somewhere in your corrupted common sense, but I cannot fanthom why you persist in deluding yourself when the only reward for thinning fat finns with unapologetic worship is prison "friendships" in your immediate future. Are you secretly homosexual?

you are more pitiful for resorting to questioning my sexuality, it's petty and weak-minded, grow-up, act your age, I try to at least act as an adult, and all I get is sophmoric insults.

Is it just you or do all hackers instantiate[1] homosexuality as an insult to mankind? If so, you should know that hacking is punishable by ad hoc internatinal tribunals for crimes against humanity. You know, this homophobe talk wont go over very well with your prison buddies. It's best you drop that nasty habit right now.

[1] From the big words explained to small minds department. Instantiation is similiar to using a Class.
Instantiating an object is what allows you to actually use objects in your program. You can write hundreds and hundreds of class declarations, but none of that code will be used until you create an instance of an object. A class declaration is merely a template for what an object should look like. When you instantiate an object, C++ follows the class declaration as if it were a blueprint for how to create an instance of that object.

Ive only been at uni for half a year and this january I had to reformat my harddrive and reinstall windows 2000 cuz it fucked up. My friends have the same problem. One friend also had to reformat his hard drive cuz of win 2000.

Another friend was running WinME and she had been experiencing the dreaded "explorer.exe has caused an illegal operation" followed by system crash for over 4 months. However she had been suffering in silence simply because she didnt know what reformatting was or how to reinstall windows. We checked her computer out and it was virus free - sure it was full of junk programs but isnt windows supposed to handle programs? Anyway the cause of the crashes was usually after clicking on My Computer. In the end there was nothing we could do so we reinstalled the OS for her.
Now she tells us afterwards that her computer was actually good compared to some of her friends. We couldnt honestly believe that people could have a more fucked up computer than she'd had. Let alone that these people are living with it. I expect to have to reinstall WinME again for her in the future..give it a few months.

ANOTHER friend - again female was running Windows 95. After installing a Network card (correctly), Windows 95 froze at the splash screen. We tried all sorts of things but it wouldnt work. After we removed the Network card again it worked fine. Isnt windows supposed to handle hardware gracefully? What sort of shitty coding causes it to crash? I dont care whether the network card was faulty or not - it shouldnt crash windows.

Thats all the flatmates I have who run Windows - all of them have had their computer fucked up. The other one has an IMac - she suffered a hardware problem (the fuse in the power supply blew).

...were less problematic because they were just a GUI over DOS, not a heap of spaghetti code of a GUI over DOS that is trying to make an impression of ebing a full-scale operation system.

What was ever wrong with *.ini files???

What was ever wrong with the chance to reinstall Windows without reinstalling all the apps???

Why do we have to cope with that abysmal idiocy called Registry?

On a side note... is there a non-proprietary solution for remote install of Windows from a file server? Something similar to saving a disk image? Or if I will attempt to do so, Windoze will choke and die, like they (W2k) done after replacing a motherboard for an identical one?

your evidence is overwhelming (none / 0) (#58)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 05:49:10 AM PST

My friend saw a UFO! Yep, he was minding his business, feeding chiclets to the dog, and he saw one in the sky behind the gazebo. The proof is how the dog cocked its head in that funny way dogs have when their minds are somewhere between confused and pleading.

I seen couple of them too. UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object - anything hanging or moving in the air that you can't say what it is. However, vast majority - and all the ones I ever seen - after identification turns out to be nice and weird atmospheric phenomenons.

If it has to be called an UFO, it has to be unidentified. If it gets identified - regardless if it turns out to be a cloud, a light reflection, reentry of a stage of a rocket engine, or a genuine alien spaceship - it isn't UFO anymore.

explain the dog's reaction, wise guy (none / 0) (#64)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 07:40:58 AM PST

On closer inspection, you didnt have a dog to confirm your worst fears, did you? No, you did not. Ergo, Lunix is better than Windows 2000. Heh, I'm quick study to you Lunix whiz kids. Oh well, off to download slackerware.

I know it because everything I said was truth. You probably know it too but honestly I dont care if you dont believe me - it changes nothing.

At the moment I have another Windows problem. On startup it announces that it cant find msnp32.dll and therefore windows networking wont work. So how do I fix that one? Honestly if you know please tell me. Please dont say I have to reformat and reinstall again.

(and no I cant just copy the file over from the windows CD because Microsofts wonderful anti-piracy methods mean that it wont work)<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

delete networking devices (none / 0) (#73)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 12:02:24 PM PST

reboot. Follow the instructions when they ask you to insert your Windows CD. When networking comes back up, brag about how l33t you are in an instant message to your hacker buddies. Alternatively, stick to Lunix. You deserve each other.

...for something that calls itself a Finished Product to forget its settings or lose files (pseudo)randomly. It's good that by removing the damaged part it (when you are lucky) gets installed back, but wouldn't it be much better if it wouldn't fail at first?

Linux can be sometimes a bitch to set up (if you want something that the default installers don't do themselves), but once it is set up it holds in shape. Windows tended to do the most bizzare things to me. From when I moved the mission-critical systems of my company from NT to Linux, the outages we had were reduced to the ones caused by electricity or our ISP. (Or when disk space ran out, and it will not repeat as it is guarded automatically now and limits on problematic processes were imposed. I was a greenhorn back then.) Due to simple server-based email screening we also had not a single email worm related problem. Contrary to this, our Windows machines need to get their asses wiped nearly every day, incidence of problems per machine is much higher. It's also a bit nontrivial to save a Windows machine configuration and restore it back after tinkering - apparently there was something wrong on textfile-based configurations so they had to go. After all, it isn't 1970 anymore, so the satisfying, decades-proved approach had to go to make place for something new and oh so very beta...

you radiate intelligence! (none / 0) (#76)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 02:33:22 PM PST

it shouldnt be normal for something that calls itself a Finished Product to forget its settings or lose files (pseudo)randomly

After you petition MS to remove the deleteRandomFile() system call, find another occupation.

windows doesnt randomly delete files. Now be a clever scientist and admit the impish magic pixies under the hood are actually a combination of operator error and ignorance.

Or a nearly-well working hardware autodetect code (that works well in 98% of cases and in the rest it screws the machine up), and installation/deinstallation programs that are trying to be clever and in their zeal overwrite or erase something they shouldn't - and you can't figure out what is happening unless you become a criminal and decompile the install package and read its scripts (there are utilities for ie. Installshield that can open the exefile like a can opener).

Everytimes I see a crawling progress bar I long for the messy text outputs of "make install". /lib and /usr/lib are messy too, but still less obscure than \windows\system. Also, try to find why a program in your pet system is crashing; I at least have gdb and strace.

But I cant do that cuz I dont have the network card drivers on hand (the disk is lost in heaps of stuff lol..but ill find it).

Also ive got a 56k modem but im getting pings of over 600ms. Its not my ISP cuz on the other computer its normal at about 200ms. I dont know what could be causing this - ive reinstalled the modem and the dial up adapter. Sorry to be using you as a technical support lol. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

my suggestion (none / 0) (#77)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 02:45:20 PM PST

You're a clever hacker, write your own driver. I can assure you that Windows compiles and runs code every bit as deterministically as Lunix, and it's quite obvious that you have no other recourse, that the situation with your box is so borked a fucking secretary working weekends at the SPCA to buy butter biscuits for her great, great grandchildren can solve it. Sadly, she'd probably defer to the resident office Lunix geek who will yell at her for being such a lamer and using Windows instead of compiling her own kernel after staying up all night learning to code drivers in shell script.

Get busy hacker -- if you dont have any pressing illegal activity to commit, of course.

funny what gets reported as a bug (none / 0) (#28)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 06:07:55 PM PST

3. Slow DirectX Performance in Windows 2000

You know, Lunix "developers" could learn a thing about that list of bugs. Namely, develop software under CVS so that a fucking list can actually exist instead of pretending lusers have gremlins in their CPU or are too stupid to RTFM.
I nominate the following entry: "1. Performs poorly once electricity is applied to computer."

CVS is an Open Sores "product." You must mean Microsoft Visual SourceSafe.--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

First, it's spelled L.U.N.I.X, not Linux. Get it right. Of course, after reading this article I now understand why you hackers insist on obfuscating the truth with this intentional misspelling.

Second, since OS X is based on L.U.N.I.X, it is therefore an illegal hacker operating system. I'll bet you and your little criminal buddies would just love it if we backdoored our Compaqs and Dells with your hackerware. Now run along, and "upload" some "pron" off the Inter - Net. The adults have weighty matters to discuss.

No versions of MAC OS or Linux are illegal (as declared by every country in the western world), thats like saying if I made my own program it would be instanmtly classified as illegal. In which case Windows which provides tools to do this, would also be classified as illegal.
Also no foprtune 500 companies would trust there servers with any version of Windows, they like many others use a *nix based OS.

Your blind assertions are meaningless. I understand that you cling to Windows, because your computer knowlege dose not alow you to get past those child proof buttons. This dose not mean you have to condem everything else.

If your lock is disfunctioning and a person is entering your home without using a key, but using a different tool, wont you buy this guy a beer when you find him in youre home and addressing you about it? No, this guy will bloody SHOOT him. Supposedly the hacker finds his way out of your house, he will fuck YOU over then, he knows the weak spot of your house and CAN abuse it.

Are you willing to turn your back on that?

What is a Hacker (none / 0) (#115)

by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jun 7th, 2002 at 01:29:51 PM PST

> correct me if I'm wrong, there is universal agreement that both
> hackers and crackers break in to computers that do not belong to them.

No, there is not. Traditionally, a hacker is someone who writes computer code or who modifies existing code to fix bugs or to add new function. (He is usually getting paid for it, too, although some people take it up as a hobby.)

A hacker is not someone who tresspasses for any reason--that's a cracker. This is all despite what em or anyone else may say. The term also carries the connotation of marathon coding ("all nighters") and less than perfect code. It often carries the additional connotation that the design phase was brief or non-existant. (Typically you should design your program first, then code to the design. If you just sit down and start keying in code off the top of your head, then you're a hacker. If you're under a tight deadline or trying to fix a production problem, you may have to hack even though you know better. Hacked code is usually much harder to maintain down the road then well desiged programs but it can often be faster to write.)

A related term is hack, which is a section of code that works but that is not elegant and therefore will probably be hard to maintain. When a programmer describes his code as being a hack it means it's not something with which he's satisfied. An example of this: "I finally got the new feature to work. It took all night and it is a total hack but it'll have to do for now."

I remember the days when hacker only meant someone who did binge coding. Somewhere along the line, some of these hackers (but by no means most) started using their skills to break into to other people's systems. The media seems to have
picked up on the use of the term hacker to mean people who break into other systems, and thus among the general public it now also carries that meaning. In fact, younger programmers themselves often understand only the mass-media definition of hacker. However, among my profession, and especially among the old-timers like myself, a hacker is considered to be someone who likes to hack at code (or who is good at it), i.e. a skilled programmer. Confusingly, we have adopted the newer meaning as well, and will sometimes use both simultaneously, as in "I was trying to hack that code last night when a hacker crashed the system!"

We programmers usually don't use the term hacker to describe ourselves to non-programmers to avoid confusion, but we often still use the term in its older sense among ourselves. Sometimes it's complementary, sometimes not. We say that someone is "quite a hacker" if we admire his coding skills. Or we say he's "just a hacker" when we don't think much of his design skills. And when someone calls himself a hacker, it's usually meant in a vaguely self-deprecating way. Em's buddy Rick probably assumed that em would understand him; after all, he was in Silicon Valley. There are lots of hackers there! Or maybe Rick spends so much time with computer folks that he's just not very good at dealing with non-computer types (a common syndrome).

There are some people who make a self-serving distinction between hackers who just test other people's security (without the owner's permission) and crackers who break into systems with the intent to steal or destroy data. This is a bogus distinction, since in both cases tresspassing ("cracking") is involved. Tresspassing is a crime and there is nothing altruistic about it IMO.

Well, that's my rant and I'm done with it.

Cheers,dave k.

Secret Language? (none / 0) (#15)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 01:38:51 PM PST

A secret language from communities of descendants of escaped slaves in Brazil, identical to Portuguese in grammar, but with all the words replaced by African words??

Capoeira is a west african martial art, born in Angola, disguised as a dance in Brazil to deceive the masters during slavery days. You see it performed mainly in the region of Salvador. It exists, with some differences, in the islands of the Caribbean too, where it is known under other names: laghia for example in Martinique or Saint Lucia. It is said that a good capoeirista doesn't fear a karateka.

The art of deceit, of illusion, is the defense of the oppressed. In regions where the white masters were a minority, and/or with strong roman catholic influence, they would definitely prohibit any fighting (dangerous for their property, the slave), any practicing of fighting (dangerous for them), any pagan ritual, but they woul allow dancing and a little drinking. So the fights and the practicing went on, as acrobatic dancing (Those fights were already codified in Africa, they just made them a little more artistic, more choreographic, with more harmonies in the music).

In more puritan regions, like the United States, the main, if not one, distraction for the slaves was the church. They sang, and they could write their own songs. If you listen carefully to the old gospels, and if you know the keys, you will be surprised by the meaning (Canaan = Canada, and the songs about Canaan were giving all the instructions to go to Canada).

I've heard some mention of this hidden communication through song in North American slave culture. Do you imagine there was any sort of hidden communication in South American slave and quilombo culture, or do you suppose they were content to simply practice martial arts disguised as dance?

On another note, why do you suppose modern practitioners of Capoeira are so attached to its African origins, when it is not practised in Africa today, and it seems clear it was shaped in part by the indiginous South American people living in the quilombos? Is it tied in with the semi-mythological aspects of the story of Zumbi, do you suppose? Or maybe you don't have to read too much into it, there. I mean, there isn't much mention of escaped slaves living in native North American settlements in your average American classroom, either.

Hey, I wonder where the word "marooned" comes from? I mean, how did a color come to describe isolation, you know? It seems a little weird.

This is just great stuff! Keep it coming. You sure seem to know a lot about it.

A sort of hidden communication in South America and quilombos? Sincerely, I don't know. I would say yes (there are remnants of such communication in the West Indies) but I have no proof of that, and unfortunately, I never discussed the subject with the descendants of quilombeiros I met in Brazil.

Why modern practitioners are so attached to the African origins? Well, why do Black Americans want to be called African-American? Why is Kwanza taking the place of Xmas? Why did Marcus Garvey prophecised and funded Rastafari? What about Césaire, Senghor, Damas, and the Négritude? Why "Say it loud, I'm black and I'm proud" or "Black is beautiful"?

For what I have seen less than 3 weeks ago, Capoeira is still practised in Angola, and is very far from its death bed. It is not very different from the brazilian form, which is mainly african.

Marooned has nothing to do with color. It comes from the spanish cimarron (I don't know where the spanish word comes from), meaning "domestic animal gone to the wild". By the way, marooned means abandoned, forsaken, isolated too.

"A secret language from communities of descendants of escaped slaves in Brazil, identical to Portuguese in grammar, but with all the words replaced by African words??
Wow... I'm from Brazil... and there is nothing like this!

With this:

"A sort of hidden communication in South America and quilombos? Sincerely, I don't know. I would say yes"

Now then. I think you'll find that Capoeira was exported from Brazil to Angola (just as it has been exported to many other nations), rather than continuously practised from pre-colonial times to the present. There is plenty of evidence of fighting dance in Africa, to be sure, but not under the name "Capoeira."

I'm trying to teach you something, here. Just because you're from a country doesn't mean a foreigner can't teach you something about your own land. Pay attention to em when he discusses languages. He knows what he's talking about.

I must apologize. I should sign my posts, or become a member of this assembly. The first post in that thread was not mine. The others yes. I am not Brazilian, but I have been there sometimes. I am always willing to learn something, and I do appreciate your attempt. I agree with you, a foreigner can teach me something, even a lot, about my country, and in fact, it has happened (a linguist at the university). Now, about the fighting dances of Africa not known under the name of capoeira, you are right. The only Africans I have met who were calling their dance capoeira were Angolans. I didn't ask them their reason to do so. In Brazil I have heard of Capoeira d'Angola.

I know em knows what he is talking about when he discusses languages. I do not pretend to know something about that (that was not the subject), and he is a linguist.

On secret language and capoeira (none / 0) (#66)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 09:07:55 AM PST

Well, i'm a brazilian.

I'm not from african origin, but i have many friends that are...

About that secret language stuff... I never heard about that. Never. There is plenty of dialects here im Brazil, but not a dialect with african origin. The african language helped in shaping our "brazilian portuguese", and the african culture had some influence in our culture. But the actual people that descended from africans were too widespread to share a commom secret language. They are all around the country, and their dialects are shaped by very strong regional influences.
There is a few that still lives at the old quilombo sites, and they are, at most, apart from normal society. They could share a african-based language, but it can't be generalized as a secret language of the slaves...

Capoeira is a fighting style very common here. Almost every major city has many schools teaching it... It mixes acrobatic fighting with dance. Capoeristas are know to be very resistant, as the blows they share are somewhat strong. The best schools can be found in Salvador, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. It uses a primitive instrument (berimbau) as a music base. The berimbau is a string instrument (picture it as a bow with a small bowl attached). The string is played, and the sound reverberates at the bowl...

A secret language from communities of descendants of escaped slaves in Brazil, identical to Portuguese in grammar, but with all the words replaced by African words?? Wow... I'm from Brazil... and there is nothing like this!

The Cafundó language is in reality mostly Kimbundo and Kikongo lexicon with a local BVP [Brazilian Vernacular Portuguese] structure.

And Cafundó is not the only one; there is also the Negro da Costa secret language in Minas Gerais.

Unlike you, I don't go around claiming statements about the variation within a language spoken by 200 million people are false merely because they fail to reflect my limited experience.--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

First let me say this: That article is a joke! Anyone who believes all that garbage shouldn't allow their kids to learn to drive either -- they will use their cars as deadly killing machines. (hah!)
I think Mr. Gibbons guy had the right idea *IN THEORY*, but if you really want to know what your kids do online, sit down with them and WATCH them! It's the same principle as with what they watch on TV, the music they listen to, who their friends are, etc. Get involved and ask questions. Don't assume everything your kid is doing is legal, but don't assume everything is illegal either. Don't assume anything - just ASK!
With the guidelines this guy's laid out, he'd make even the most innocent tech-savvy kid out to be the next Kevin Mitnick (speaking of jokes).
And the part about Quake - get a clue, genius!
I played Quake for years, and I'm not a hacker. I averaged about 10-12 hours every day on my computer. I learned about hardware and software, and what's vulnerable and what's safe. I even studied viruses - curious about damage they did, so as to protect my system from them. I did all that, and I turned out ok ... and I'm a girl, go stick that in your statistics!
Today, I get paid to do the things I learned as a kid, and still enjoy it. That wouldn't have been possible if I had lived in the Gibbons household.

Define Satanic? One who worships Satan, right? Does wearing black, feeling sorry for yourself, and writing bad poetry equal Satanic? Do all Satanists walk around in black with chains and goofy make-up? I seriously doubt it. Satanists are normal people with different beliefs, not different costumes...

Also, what proof do you have that only Satanists play Quake? I've played Quake, I'm not a big fan of it, but that doesn't make me a Satanist. It sounds like people like you are one of those blaming video games and TV for the downfall of society, instead of bad parenting and shoddy schools.

So, remember kiddies, just because someone looks different and thinks differently than you do, it doesn't make them evil bad meanies!

Does wearing black, feeling sorry for yourself, and writing bad poetry equal Satanic? Do all Satanists walk around in black with chains and goofy make-up?

----------------"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

RE: Your retarder reply. (none / 0) (#93)

by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 11:55:40 AM PST

Ok, you explain to me in an intelligent manner how wearing black, feeling sorry for yourself, writing bad poetry and wearing goofy make-up makes you a Satanist.

Couldn't that make one an Anti-Clown? I've yet to meet anyone Gothic that was a Satanist. Gothics are usually people that percieve themselves as outcasts, and so they make themselves look stupid to reinforce this belief. I know because a few of my friends went through this stage. (Unfortunately) I had to endure the goofy clothes and the bad poetry while they cried a lot... it was awful.

Gothic = Sad/pathetic/lame
Satanist = Some that worships Satan.
Any similarities? Nope. I'm sure there are a few Satan worshippers out there they do dress and act goofy, but not all of them.

I agree, 12 years on USENET taught me more practical information than 6 years of computer science. I would never have the job I have today without the knowledge freely given by the so called *hackers*. nitallica nice to see your NYM out and about, Cya in ABC, all the best

I work abuse at a major ISP, so I spend most days verifying "hack attempt" logs submitted by customers and helping them (or the local law enforcement authorities as necessary) to act opon them. After having done this job for nearly a year and seeing nearly every type of network abuse by hackers, I offer this description of the anti-hacker system I have employed on my server at home.

Opon attempting to gain access to my OSX server or my win2k server, a hacker is greeted by the following message:

"Welcome h4xor,
My games mp3s and porn are available for download on drive ____ at address ____.

Have fun, download all you want, but please don't install any programs on or delete anything from my computer.

root"

Know what? I've *NEVER* had any malicious traffic or virii infections on my system since I put it up. I don't run any firewall, the IPs are both static and on all day. Sure, a few kids pull some data, but it's no big deal.

Or lets put it this way: If some hacker screwed your system, you deserved it. Not necessarily because it was being used for something unethical or amoral, it could just be because whomever administrates it thinks he's smarter than an entire subculture. And shouldn't idoicy be punished?

I work as an IT everything in a smaller international company. I have one console dedicated to watching server logs in real time. I run paranoid level of logging of next to everything, all kinds of even slightly unusual traffic including ping and traceroute attempts.

As far all I seen were plain vanilla scans - attempts to see if I have vulnerable version of SSH, if my ftp is capable of serving as a relay, if my SOCKS5 is open for all, if my SMTP is an open relay, if I am vulnerable to an lpd exploit. And most often and relatively most annoying Nimda/Code Red worm attempts...

I never had anything yet that would look like a personal attention. All were scripted attempts. Failed ones, which is no wonder as they were rather lower-class threat. If you're doing your homework properly, you are safe against them.

Or lets put it this way: If some hacker screwed your system, you deserved it. Not necessarily because it was being used for something unethical or amoral, it could just be because whomever administrates it thinks he's smarter than an entire subculture.

Definitely.

And shouldn't idoicy be punished?

Not necessarily actively. Idiocy, when unprotected, sooner or later punishes itself.

Students tend to be security hackers. Breaking the computer's security is the thing to do today. They want to get into the real world of computers because they are bored with the mundane programs they are studying in the classroom. Breaking the computer's security is an easy, safe way to do it," Laskin said.

See also The New York Times, July 26, 1981, "Case of the Purloined Password" by Vin McLellan.

Indeed, because of its very importance, the password directory is the traditional target for what the computer industry calls ''hackers.''

Hackers are technical experts; skilled, often young, computer programmers, who almost whimsically probe the defenses of a computer system, searching out the limits and the possibilities of the machine. Despite their seemingly subversive role, hackers are a recognized asset in the computer indutry, often highly prized.

On criminal language and the word 'hacker' (none / 0) (#99)

by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 30th, 2002 at 10:54:11 AM PST

Wow.
First, I've been programming for 21 years, so any insights I may offer sould be considered especially useless.
Second, the only difference between a cracker, hacker, or programmer is merely situation or intent.
I was actually doing research for a term paper on the current Mideast conflict when I happened to come across this site. After hours of reading anti-Semitic literature, this article by 'em' (whoever the hell that is) popped out at me, because of its similarity with Nazi and Arab treatises against the Jews. You can do this yourself. Read 'em's article again, but this time, insert the word 'Jew' where ever you see the word 'hacker.'
History teaches us that the ignorant attack that which they don't understand. This is a case in point.
A careful re-reading of this article will reveal that 'em' could only pull quotes from the 80's to support his position. This is because hacking was only fun that long ago. We are now in the sixth- and seventh-generation of design models, and anyone who understands anything about computer security realizes that a hacker cannot breach your hard drive if that drive has been removed from the computer at the end of the business day and placed in a safe. This is why the 'denial of service' attack has become so popular: there's nothing else left to do.
What 'em's article is really about is making you afraid. If you are afraid of 'them,' you will listen to him, and this gives 'em' power. This is not a unique situation, of course. Is it not an urban legend that automobile mechanics always screw their customers? Is it not also an urban legend that lawyers always lie?
Here's the truth. The major thrust of the hacking community in the 21st century is not criminal, but anti-corporate. For us geeks, our machines were always a happy place that we could go to deal with the world on our own terms. Now that world is being invaded by corporate interests who wish only to see how much money they can suck out of it before it dies, and then move on. This is why programmers hack. 'Em,' who is probably heavily invested in NASDAQ, is going to lose money unless you believe that ametures who can program are all criminals. This is tantamout to claiming that auto mechanics who use rebuilt, rather than factory authorized parts are criminals. Don't fall for this fallacy of ignorance and fear.
Enough said.

You come in here with your braggado, chest all puffed out. Well I say Neophyte! I've been programming for 23 years and I can assure you that em is right on the button with this one.

similarity with Nazi and Arab treatises against the Jews. You can do this yourself. Read 'em's article again, but this time, insert the word 'Jew' where ever you see the word 'hacker.'

Your comment is by no means controversial it is simply offensive, to those like my father fought for the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War and my partner is of Jewish extraction. 'hacker' means one engaged in criminal computer activity, 'Jew' does not.

It is a good job that you do not appear to be studying Computer Science as with logic like yours your programs are likely to suck big time.

Wow... (none / 0) (#107)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 11:51:37 AM PST

I've been programming for 23 years.

Wow, 23 years. What, been taking you that long to program your VCR for the first time?

st00p1d (none / 0) (#103)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 08:53:36 AM PST

Holy crap this site is stupid. What a retarded "article". Not every hacker is a criminal. A hacker is anyone who, through inventiveness and knowledge, puts things to uses other than those for which they were originally intended. Obviously there are criminal computer hackers, but they are a small and overly publicized group. People such as the Apollo 13 astronauts and flight crew, and the people who invented Silly Putty, were also hackers, and their positive contributions to society are inestimable. These people understandably do not want to be lumped in with dumbass script kiddies who fuck around with people's computers.

What wonderful spelling. (none / 0) (#104)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 06:13:56 PM PST

You know what I think is "stupid?" Totally missing the central point of an article. And spelling with numbers instead of letters. That's stupid, too. Just the sort of thing you might expect from a "script kiddie."

Impressed (none / 0) (#106)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 11:39:32 AM PST

Wow, I'm impressed. Spelling... way to go. We all know that is the best argument anyone here can be expected to make.
Wait, I forgot. The majority of this site's readers don't know how to form an actual argument. I keep making that mistake, I expect people to have at least a grade school education.

A hacker is anyone who, through inventiveness and knowledge, puts things to uses other than those for which they were originally intended.

You make up some half-assed, overgeneralized, whitewashing definition of "hacker" and then blame everyone else for not knowing the definition that, again, you made up. Then based on this "definition," you defame a group of brilliant scientists, military officers and inventors by calling them hackers.

So tell me, how is this "forming an actual argument?" I and the other highly educated regulars at this esteemed site are waiting anxiously for your reply.

Well, either that, or we're going out for a drink.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective
companies.
Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org.
The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most
Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source
Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part
of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written
permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by
the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to
legal@adequacy.org.